Consumer VOICE

|    |   |

  Shop Now Donate Now

National Commission Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Revision Petition In Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a Revision Petition against an order passed by a State Consumer Commission in execution proceedings is not maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Uday Lalit and Indu Malhotra affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court on the non-applicability of revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC on any order passed in an Execution Proceedings. The Bench referred to the judgments of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada   Devi   &   Anr.  v.  Nandan   Singh   &   Ors. AIR 1987 Pat 33 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya  v.  Guntupalli Rajamma AIR 1988 AP.

The bench further went on saying that exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) by the National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before the State Commission. It further observed that there is no remedy under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an order in execution proceedings and therefore held that the NCDRC had committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition of the Appellant in the first place and upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had rightly set aside the order of the NCDRC allowing the Revision Petition in the first place.

Read the full order the Supreme Court bench

The Supreme Court has held that a Revision Petition against an order passed by a State Consumer Commission in execution proceedings is not maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Uday Lalit and Indu Malhotra affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court on the non-applicability of revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC on any order passed in a Revision Petition filed by the Karnataka Housing Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission in an Execution Proceedings.

The Bench, whilst referring to the judgments of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada   Devi   &   Anr.  v.  Nandan   Singh   &   Ors. AIR 1987 Pat 33 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya  v.  Guntupalli Rajamma AIR 1988 AP 226, observed that Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree to passed in the substantive dispute. “

The bench further went on saying that exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) by the National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before the State Commission. The jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Commission in a “consumer dispute”. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’.

It further observed that there is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. In the instant case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition under Section 21(b) filed by the Karnataka Housing Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings.

By Ankur Saha, Head Legal (VOICE)

Divya Patwal

VOICE

Translate »